Well, I found Season 3 a travesty. If one ignores the made up characters like Feodora and Sophie, there's a serious shortage of plot. And the efforts to tie Victoria as housewife to important events of the day by creating scenes (like she was virtually alone among her ministers to encourage the man who identified how cholera was spread) that didn't take place or by moving events around by years or even decades. The relationship with the children would be more interesting. As I understand it from the BBC documentaries that made it onto YouTube, Victoria insisted that her children treat her as their queen as well as their mother, a far different relationship than we're seeing in the protective, encouraging mother of the series. There seem to be no constitutional issues whatsoever in regards to the relationship between the monarchy and the elected government. I would think that not to be true. And so on.

It's like "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" if the rich and famous had stereotypical lower middle class personalities.

Well, I found Season 3 a travesty. If one ignores the made up characters like Feodora and Sophie, there's a serious shortage of plot. And the efforts to tie Victoria as housewife to important events of the day by creating scenes (like she was virtually alone among her ministers to encourage the man who identified how cholera was spread) that didn't take place or by moving events around by years or even decades.

Well if it were a documentary there would be no plot. If it were pure fiction you would need a plot. Since this genre is between the two you could argue the subplots of interplay between the characters substitutes for a plot. For me there is too much of that. I suppose I would prefer it to be closer to a documentary.

John Snow was Victoria's anesthetist. She was criticized for taking anesthesia for her last two births on religious grounds. As head of the Church of England it was simply not right. She said the to the effect that the Archbishop should have a baby or two. The time this took place was between her 8th and 9th child (1854-1857) but at this point the drama was in the 1848-9 period. There was a cholera outbreak in 1849 but John Snow's work took place in the 1854 outbreak. His ideas still weren't fully accepted but Victoria stood by him.

The relationship with the children would be more interesting. As I understand it from the BBC documentaries that made it onto YouTube, Victoria insisted that her children treat her as their queen as well as their mother, a far different relationship than we're seeing in the protective, encouraging mother of the series.

Yes. Victoria called women who breastfed "cows" and found babies unattractive with "frog like action" of the legs. She related better when they were older but didn't let them forget who she was. Bertie was a disappointment and she never gave him much responsibility until her old age.

There seem to be no constitutional issues whatsoever in regards to the relationship between the monarchy and the elected government. I would think that not to be true.

If I could be more specific about the relationship between the monarchy and the elected government, I would be. My sense is that Victoria, even though constrained as a constitutional monarch, had lots more power than Elizabeth I does today. Government ministers certainly spent a whole lot of time meeting with her if the series is at all accurate. Except for the ladies in waiting issue when Melbourne's party lost, we haven't seen any real conflict between Victoria and the representatives of government except when she turns out to have been prescient. Somehow I doubt she really gave up power so easily, but we're not seeing anything about the role of the sovereign in 19th c. English government.

. My sense is that Victoria, even though constrained as a constitutional monarch, had lots more power than Elizabeth I does today. Government ministers certainly spent a whole lot of time meeting with her if the series is at all accurate. Except for the ladies in waiting issue when Melbourne's party lost, we haven't seen any real conflict between Victoria and the representatives of government except when she turns out to have been prescient. Somehow I doubt she really gave up power so easily, but we're not seeing anything about the role of the sovereign in 19th c. English government.

In fact Queen Elizabeth's reserve powers are about the same as Victoria's. These are powers that can be used by the sovereign under certain undefined (presumably extraordinary) circumstances. One difference is Britain's place in the world then vs now. Victoria could interact with other sovereigns with more political power and did, particularly with Napoleon III. Another difference is personality. Elizabeth, at least publicly, is strictly apolitical. Victoria never was. The Bedchamber Crisis was exceptional but she continued to influence events via a lifelong stream of correspondence with her governments which never abated, even during the years of her so called seclusion from Dec 1861 to 1871. Perhaps Elizabeth is doing the same thing. These exchanges are secret so we don't see them, and we wouldn't see them in the drama.

Jenna Coleman can't play Victoria much longer. Season 4, if it happens, will probably go up to the precise moment of Albert's death.This episode of Edward VII picks up from that point. The series had high critical praise and IMO is more in the mode of understated British cinema. Despite the name, Victoria's character dominates and Anette Crosbie seems born to the role. This episode, as all episodes, is in two parts.

Jenna Coleman can't play Victoria much longer. Season 4, if it happens, will probably go up to the precise moment of Albert's death.This episode of Edward VII picks up from that point. The series had high critical praise and IMO is more in the mode of understated British cinema. Despite the name, Victoria's character dominates and Anette Crosby seems born to the role. This episode, as all episodes, is in two parts.

I agree that Victoria will make the same casting decision that The Crown has made, ie, recast the series to other, older actors to portray the principals at a later stage of their lives. It is one thing to age or fountain of youth an actor for one or two scenes in an episode, it is entirely different project to pull off that transformation for an entire series.

I agree that Victoria will make the same casting decision that The Crown has made, ie, recast the series to other, older actors to portray the principals at a later stage of their lives. It is one thing to age or fountain of youth an actor for one or two scenes in an episode, it is entirely different project to pull off that transformation for an entire series.

It will certainly happen if the series goes beyond Season 4. Even Season 4 will likely fill a ten year span. Coleman is just about the same age as Victoria would have been at the end of Season 3 so perhaps the experts at this sort of thing can handle 10 years of aging. Victoria was 42 when Albert died.

It will certainly happen if the series goes beyond Season 4. Even Season 4 will likely fill a ten year span. Coleman is just about the same age as Victoria would have been at the end of Season 3 so perhaps the experts at this sort of thing can handle 10 years of aging. Victoria was 42 when Albert died.

Coleman is one of those fortunate people that look much younger than they are. She could easily pass for a 25 year old, which she easily accomplished in the series. That is likely to set an upper limit on theatrical aging.

Historum

Founded in 2006, Historum is a history forum dedicated to history discussions and historical events. Our community welcomes everyone from around the world to discuss world history, historical periods, and themes in history - military history, archaeology, arts and culture, and history in books and movies.